Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/03/04 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA March 4, 1968 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held at 7 p.m. on the above date wit~ the following members present; Stewart, York, Hyde, Gregson, Rice, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: none. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Junior Planner Masciarelli, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Approval of minutes of the meeting of February 19. 1968, as mailed. Request for approval ofSalvation Arn~ Thrift Store in a C-1 Zone - 252 Third Avenue Oirector of Planning Warren explained that a similar request was approved by the Commission in October 1966 for the First Church of Religious Science to locate on Third Avenue with ~ne condition that no used furniture be sold. In this case, the applicant maintains that the sale of used furniture is essential to his operation. Presently, the C-l zone prohibits the sale of used furniture. In discussing this with the City Attorney some concern was expressed over the appropriateness of the provision. The stores presently operated by the Salvation Army are well maintained, but for the Commission to approve this use would start a precedent that would be hard to control. Mr. Warren indicated that the Commission can approve the request with the exclusion of the sale of used furniture and appliances and the applicant can be informed that it would be necessary to apply for a variance to request permission to sell these items. City Attorney Lindberg stated ~e discussee this matter witi~ the Planning Director and has subsequently done some research on the subject. He declared it was not possible ~o give the Commission any definitive answer in this regard. To allow the sale of antiques and to distinguish this from the sale of second hand merchandise is a difficult thing to do. Mr. Lindberg discussed the ordinance pertaining to the prohibition of the sale of used furniture and appliances. He added that a variance might be applied for, but that he could not see where it would suit this situation. The staff's suggestion for an amendment to the zoning ordinance is worthy of the Commission's consideration since it may be desirable to place second-hand stores in the more restrictive zones with certain conditions that would make it less objection- able in that zone. Chairman Stewart questioned the requirements for tiHs use in the new proposed zoning ordinance. Director Warren remarked that the Commission followed the same pattern as existing in the present ordinance; however, tiley may want to give this further consideration. -2- Mr. Jack Stump, attorney representing Coldwell-Banker, discussed the City's ordinance prohibiting the sale of tHis merchandise, and indicated it was not deserving of this kind of treatment - ti~at the Con~ission should not discriminate against used furniture and any type of used appliances. He added that there is an ordinance against sidewalk sales, against the stacking of furniture in the stores, etc., and urged the Commission to repeal this ordinance to make it a good situation wHereby the Salvation Army could locate in this city. Member Adams con~mented that he is impressed with the Salvation Army stores - they are of a high quality; however, tHere is a difference between used furniture and appliances and used clothing. He felt it was wise of the Commission to put into the ordinance the prohibition of the sale of these items in the C-1 zone. He further added that there may be a difference between reconditioned appliances and used appliances so that the store would not take on the appearance of a junk shop. Chairman Stewart asked the applicant if he could operate the store without selling these items. Major Ellis, representing the Salvation Arno, declared it would be impossible since most of their income comes from the sale of used furniture. He explained the operation of refinishing and reupnolstering this merchandise. Major Ellis added t~at they nave an "as is" yard in San Diego where all the junk furniture is sold. Only the sale of good mercHandise will be from this store - no refinishing work will be done here. Member York declared he is generally opposed to the sale of used furniture in this zone; however, it has been pointed out that there are extenuating circumstances Here. He visited their store in National City and can see nothing objectionable about it. Iqr. York suggested the Planning Director and City Attorney get together to discuss this and possibly bring it up at the next workshop meeting. City Attorney Lindberg stated that, at this point, tile applicant is interested in the balance of the operation as well, and this has been cleared. He indicated that the Commission coulu conduct a public Hearing to prepare the way for the applicant to go ahead with the rest of his operation. MSUC (Gregson-Guyer) THe re~ail operation of a thrift s~ore is classified as a C-1 use with tile exclusion of the sale of tHe following merchandise: used furniture and used appliances. The City Attorney and tHe staff was directed to take steps to initiate an amendment whereby the sale of these items would be considered for approval in this zone. PUBLIC HEARING - Prezonin~ - 4103 Ota~ Valle~ Road -"A" to "M-I" and establishin~ setback at 25' The application was read in which a request was made for prezoning 55 acres of County "A" zoned land located on the south side of Otay Valley Road to M-1 and establishing setbacks at 25'. -3- Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location as the south side of Otay Valley Road south and southwest of Princess Manor Unit #3 and west of the proposed Inland Freeway. The property is unimproved and presently used for agricultural purposes. He then noted the adjacent land use and zoning, and statea that the applicant was informed that the General Plan places this area in an Industrial Reserve. A letter from the County Planning Department was then read in which they expressed concern that this prezoning would generate pressure for reclassification of adjacent areas in the County, and that it was premature. Director Warren declareo that the staff has recommended approval of this prezoning since it does conform to the General Plan. The letter from the County arrived this morning; however, the staff's recommendation would not be changed. The Commission then discussed the alignment of the 805 Freeway. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. J. u. Peters, the applicant, asked approval of the request basing it on the conformance of the General Plan. Chairman Stewart asked if he had ar~ prospective tenants at this time. Mr. Peters stated he did not - that he felt it was unethical in leasing land before it was actually rezoned. T~ere being no further col~ents, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member York declared he took exception to some of the comments made by the County Planning Director, especially about the prezoning being premature. He stated that industrial zoning in Chula Vista is inadequate and that they should try to encourage more industry to come into the City. He pointed out that people living in residential areas do not want to be adjacent to industrial areas, and for this reason, tile City should rezone industrial land long before there is a need for it. In this way, people would be aware of what they are buying next to. Mr. York discussed the area in Buena Park zoned industrial 15 to 18 years ago which proved to be an asset to the city in bringing in many industries. He stated that Chula Vista needs an area of this type to romance these industries into coming into the City. Director Warren noted that the residential development in the area was sparse and no new development has taken place. Member Adams indicated that the Commission should have received the letter from the County in order to have given them time to study this. ~r. Warren indicated that in his telephone conversation with the Director, they said they were hesitant about sending such a letter because eventually these areas may come into our city, anO naturally, we are just as concerned about it as they are. Member Adams felt we should communicate with them about action taken on this matter - if approved, it should state the Commission's reasons. Mr. Adams declared that as long as the General Plan snows industrial zone extending on down to Main Street, this is the action the Commission should take. -4- MSUC (Guyer-York) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to RESOLUTION NO. 498 tile City Council Prezoning to M-1 for Property at 4103 Otay Valley Road. Findings be as follows: a. T~e prezoning proposed conforms to the General Plan. b. Good zoning practaice since the subject property is in an area well-suited to industrial development - the Western Otay Valley area in which the subject property is located is already beginning to develop industrially. c. Additional industrial land will augment the City's presently inadequate supply of such property. PUBLIC HEARING - Rezoning - Bonita Bel-Aire Subdivision (26 lots) - R-l-B-20 to R-l-B-12 - Silver Gate Savings & Loan Association The application was read in which a request was made to rezone from R-l-B-20 to R-l-~-12, 26 lots in the Bonita Bel-Aire Subdivision. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the lots in question, the location of the subdivision, and the adjacent land use. He discussed this request with the applicant and questioned how this would be done, since some regrading would have to be done in order to create these additional lots. The applicant had not previously submitted plans; however, just prior to meeting time he submitted a diagram of how he proposes to do this. Nr. Warren pointed out on the diagram that from 4 lots, the applicant proposes to create 6 lots with the construction of houses on a staggered basis. The Commission briefly discussed the dimensions of the lots after grading would take place. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Jim Delaney, Vice-President and Senior Loan Officer of the Silver Gate Savings and Loan Association stated he is also representing the Palomar Savings & Loan. He said they feel they have an obligation to the residents of the Bonita Bel Aire Subdivision and the City of Chula Vista to do something with these lots and to clean up the subdivision. They want to do something to make it an attractive subdivision, an asset to the City, and also to protect their investment and loan. He stated that the subdivision has been deteriorating slowly and is known as a "defunct tract." iqany realtors will not even take clients out to this tract, the way it looks now. They feel they have a good proposal and will "pump" one and one-half million dollars into this project; regardless of which way the Commission goes tonight, they, as lenders will lose money. Mr. Uelaney submitted drawings to the Commission explaining what they propose to do. In some cases, he stated, they will make three lots out of two existing lots, and in ot~er cases, they will take three lots and make four. He declared that they have not gone into any engineering reports, until they get some indication from the Commission. They propose to clean up this vacant land, fill the washes and the swales, replant t~e hillside with ice plant and put in some trees. They are also planning to improve the Camino del Cerro Grande entrance - it will be done with elaborate block work and planting. -5- The type of home to be constructed here will range from $29,500 to $35,000 and will be 1700 square feet to 2200 square feet. These homes will be comparable to those existing in the tract. Mr. Oelaney remarked that they could have wholesaled these lots off a dozen or more times to out-of-town builders; however, they feel they have an obligation and prefer to maintain some control over the development. They pur- chased forth house plans, hired a builder, and have studied this area for four months. They plan to put in drainage facilities and regrade the lots. Mr. Delaney explained that the four vacant homes in the subdivision will be remodeled, both interior and exterior and the landscaping will be completely changed. Member Hyde asked if any of the vacant lots in this tract sold during the past year. Mr. Delaney noted that approximately 7 were sold. Member Hyde questioned the applicant's proposal to spend $1,500,000. for this develop- ment. He stated this would come to $56,000+ per lot. Mr. Delaney explained that the money would be expended for other lots also - those on Calle Mesita. At the present time, he was not sure how many more lots would be included in this figure--perhaps about 9 more lots. Member Rice questioned the planting of the slopes. Mr. Delaney answered that they were planted by the previous subdivider and maintained for a period of 60-90 days. Member Hyde asked how many additional units will be created. Mr. Uelaney surmised it would be about 6; however, he said that the topography would dictate the actual number. The lots would average in size from 13,000 to 16,000 square feet per lot. Director Warren noted one letter of approval received from the Ashdon Corporation aha a petition signed by 68 property owners in the Bonita Bel-Aire Subdivision opposing the zone change. Mr. Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, Bonita, discussed the various attempts by the applicant to involve him in the completion of this subdivision and until recently he had consistently expressed disinterest. Mr. Ferreira then explained that a subdivider must keep his land costs at 20% of the total sales cost. The applicant has $10,000 invested in each of these lots. After discussions with them on this situation, they decided it would have to be a reduction of lot sizes. Mr. Ferreira stated for the record that he has no agreement with Silver Gate--they have purchased his Bonita Cove house plans for this development. He informed them that this whole tract had to be cleaned up--not only the subject lots, and also the arainage problem has to be corrected. They are already starting to clean up the drainage problem here. Mr. Ferreira declared there was no way for Bonita Bel-Aire Subdivision but down hill unless these lots are cleared up. Also, another concern of his is that it will reflect on his subdivision proposed for the west side of Otay Lakes Road. He declared that someone would have to build $50,000 homes in order to pull this subdivision out of the red; however, $50,000 homes would not sell in this subdivision because of its bad name. -6- Those speaking in opposition were: Alfred Lansley, 450U Calle Mesita, Clifford Hawes, 4124 Camino Elevado, H. E. Schnept, Vice-Presi~ent of Sweetwater Civic Association, Armando Martinez, 4212 Camino Elevado, W. T. Hawes, 4225 Camino del Cerro Grande, Anthony Masser, 4210 Camino Elevado, Richard Sturdevant, 4540 Calle Mesita, Ronnie Matzenauer, 4788 Calle Mesita, John Oes Jardin, 4722 Calle Mesita, Mrs. C. B. Clarke, 4105 Calle la Mirada Street, San Diego, David Noe, 4200 Camino del Cerro Grande, Jay pugh, 4601 Calle Escarpada, Mr. Perkins, 4005 Camino del Cerro Grande, Lola Gordon, 676 Mission Court, and owner of parcel 26 at Calle Mesita. Their objections were as follows: (1) 90% of the people purchased their homes here because the zoning was one-half acre lots; (2) the lots in question are constantly full of weeds; however, all the other lots in the subdivision are well taken care of; (3) there would be no economic problem in this subdivision if the drainage was taken care of; the land takes water very slowly and ~oes not soak in; (4) the drainage problem can not be done lot by lot but must be done on an overall basis; (5) those lots below street level must have a permanent drainage system; (6) most of the lots have slopes, so the actual size of the building lot is small--the applicant would have to put a very small house on these proposed lots; (7) cutting these lots down would only build more banks and slopes; (8) the applicant could save himself one-half million dollars by taking these existing 20 lots and putting $35,000 homes on them; (9) Sweetwater Valley Civic Association stands behind the people who signed the petition opposing the rezoning; (10) it will devaluate the property values of the existing residences; (ll) houses designed for the rear of the lots will be denied a view; (12) it is contrary to the General Plan which proposes low density; (13) people in this Valley will be hesitant to annex to Chula Vista if the density is constantly increased; (14) Martinez--purchased his home at the peak of the tight money market when 16 of these homes were repossessed by the present owner; in the span of one year, only 6 homes remained unsold. If the drainage is fixed up and suitable homes built, the places will sell; (15) Mr. Ferreira may be trying to set a precedent here for his proposed development across the street; (16) making the lots smaller will not enhance the subdivision, but cleaning the lots up and building a good home on it will be the answer; (17) lives next to vacant lot on Calle Mesita and opposes any small lot next to his. Member York clarified the fact that the rezoning request does not include any lots on Calle Mesita. Mr. Matzenauer and Mr. DesGardner questioned being able to have a horse on these lots. Mr. Warren noted that the ordinance requires a 15,000 square foot lot. Mr. Ferreira declared that all of the people voicing opposition tonight had valid reasons, and they all agreed that the drainage should be cleared up and comparable houses in the existing price range should be built. He would question, however, where the money is coming from for fixing up this drainage problem. They are now submitting a good sound building program which will improve these lots and the sub- division. Mr. Ferreira stated for the record, that he is under no commitment whatso- ever with Silver Gate--only when the rezoning is granted will he go in and build the homes; these will be the same homes he constructed at bonita Cove. The price range for these homes will be $29,500 to $35,000; on Calle Mesita, they will build homes ranging in price from $40,000 to $45,000. -7- Chairman Stewart questioned the statement that the drainage problem will be cleared up. He asked if this is for the lots covered by the request or for the entire sub- division. Mr. Ferreira stated it was his understanding that it would be for all the lots in the subdivision. Mr. Delaney informed the Commission that they plan to fix the slopes facing Otay Lakes Road and the drainage problem on Calle LaMirada--all under the subject requested lots. Presently, they are cleaning up four lots on Calle Mesita which is costing them $20,000. Mr. Ferreira declared it was his understanding that the applicant was going to clean up all the erosion and the drainage problem. Mr. Delaney explained this was only on Otay Lakes Road. Mr. Ferreira commented that Lot 92 has the major drainage problem. He added that where there was a grade between lots, they will build split-level homes. Mr. Schnepf discussed the size of the proposed lots and the size of the homes the applicant proposed to construct. He maintained that cutting these lots down will prove to be more of a drainage problem. Member York asked if tilis would be subject to a new subdivision map. If it is, he would suggest no more testimony be allowed in this area, since the map will deal with the drainage problem. Mr. Lansley questioned how binding the statements made by Delaney and Ferreira were. Chairman Stewart explained that if the rezoning goes through, the applicant would have to submit a subdivision map and it would be approved subject to these conditions. Mr. Lansley added that just filling in the gullies will not take care of the drainage problem; and it would only aggravate the situation to build a big house on a small lot. Mr. Delaney stated that he has hired a contractor to gunite the ditches and catch boxes, and to install 20" or 24" pipes to take care of this drainage problem. Mr. Jay Pugh commented that Silver Gate has owned these lots for 2-1/2 years-- they realized the situation then. Tonight, they are painting them a "rosy ~icture" as to what they propose to do here. Mrs. Lola Gordon, owner of parcel 26 on Calle Mesita, asked if Palomar Savings and Loan was sharing in the cost of these improvements. iqr. Delaney stated they will 50-50. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. -8- Member York discussed the testimonies and said he wondered if these people had considered the alternatives. This subdivision has been trouble for a number of years and the problems have been there since its inception. This is a prime example of what the City does not want to happen. To leave this area status quo will not accomplish any thing. The people that spoke in opposition did not offer any alternatives. The lots are valued at $9000+ and to build a $30,000 home as one protestant suggested would not be feasible in this subdivision. A decision has to be made this evening as to the lesser of two evils: leave it as it is or approve the request and let the applicant §o ahead with his plans. Member Guyer discussed the original zoning of the subdivision to 20,000 square foot lots and felt it should remain this way. A solution could possibly be worked out on a subdivision map. Member Rice agreed, adding that if the Commission is going to approve a reduction of lot sizes, they should start off in a new area, and in so doing, there should be a substantial amount of open area to make up for the reduction of lot size. He said everyone recognized the fact that all of these residents bought homes in this subdivision containing 20,000 square foot lots; to go in now and allow the applicant to chop these lots up into sizes two-thirds of that presently existing in order for the lender to get back some of his loss would not be right. Mr. Rice further commented of the drainage problem, that it is a moral obligation on the part of the lender to clean up this problem, and it should be a legal obligation. Member York contended that the lender should not be obligated to clean up a mess made by the original subdivider. Member Rice disagreed, stating once the applicant assumed responsibility for the subdivision, he assumed responsibility for the problems associated with it. Chairman Stewart declared that this was a "fixed~' subdivision with 20,000 square foot lots. At this late date, it is unjust to expect these people to sacrifice the money they paid for their lots for an economic problem. From an engineering standpoint, the drainage problem can be worked out, but it would cost money. Mr. Hyde reiterated that the density of land use here should not be changed. Member Adams agreed, commenting that the Commission has had many requests in the past for smaller lots in Bonita, but have held them to one-half acre and that they want ~onita to remain a low-density area as much as possible. Chairman Stewart remarked that when Bonita Bel-Aire was brought in, it was considered a prime area as far as view lots was concerned; however, they went into too much cut and fill. The City regrets this grading and does not want to make this mistake again. If this request is approved, it will set a pattern for other subdivisions out there. The Con~nission should make every attempt to maintain a large lot area in Bonita for the people that want it, and the Commission should not be used to downgrade lot sizes to correct a personal economic problem. -9- MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Rezoning request be denied based on the following: a. There are 126 lots in the Bonita Bel-Aire Subdivision, all of which are zoned R-I-B-20. To rezone 26 of them to B-12 would be contrary to good zoning prac- tice--it would acturally create a form of spot zoning in three separate areas of the tract. b. Because of existing lot lines in the streets rights-of-way, the depth of the lots involved are relatively fixed. The lots created would not be desirable lots since they would be too deep in relation to their width. Member York commented that he is voting "aye" but hopes the people will feel this is a wise decision and that they will be better off for it. The applicant was advised of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council within 10 days. PUBLIC HEARING - Rezonin~ - Property along south side of Telegraph Canyon Road, between proposed Interstate 805 and Oleander Avenue - R-1 to R-3 and C-2 - Saratoga Development Company, et al The application was read in which a request was made to rezone from R-1 to R-3 and C-2 property located along Telegraph Canyon Road from the proposed Interstate 805 to Oleander Avenue. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area in the request and stated it contains approximately 17-1/2 acres. He also noted the adjacent land use and zoning. At the time the subdivision map was presented, it was acknowledged that these particular lots would not go R-l; however, no committments were made concerning land use. Mr. Warren discussed the need for more commercial zoning in the area. He noted the existing C-N area across the street indicating there is a need for a neighborhood shopping facilities here; however, this C-N area still remains vacant. The staff does not agree with the concept that all quadrants of freeway interchanges should be commercial. If the Commission approves this rezoning, then perhaps the C-N zone should be considered. Mr. Warren informed the Commission that since the application was submitted, the applicant has sent a letter to the staff indicating their desire to change the zone from C-2 to C-1. The staff has pointed out that because of what they consider a circumstance of inevitability, they nave no recommendation to make on the commercial zoning, but they do recommend approval of R-3-D zoning. Chairman Stewart asked if part of this proposed rezoning request would ~e in the freeway right-of-way. Mr. Warren noted that it would be and, if approved, the boundary should be coordinated with a final subdivision map. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. -10- Mr. Dennis Wittman, President of Saratoga Development Company and owner of the property in question, stated he is also a partner in the subdivision presently being developed adjacent to this area. He declared that they are ready to go in with a commercial and multiple-family development, as related by them two years ago. Mr. Wittman noted the major interchange planned for the area and pointed out the two major collector streets that will serve this area: Nacion and Oleander. He then discussed development in progress and that proposed by him in the future. At this commercial center, he would have a major supermarket, drug store and other supporting facilities, such as: 5 and 10 store, laundromat, restaurant and service station. These facilities require more tilan 3 acres--they are proposing 7.4 acres or 6 acres of usable land. ~e added that he hired Mr. Clifford Burford, a planning consultant, who made a study of the area. His report revealed that 5 acres today is not what they call a community shopping center because these centers are growing. Most of these areas have lO to 12 acres; for this reason, they feel they are not taking the edge off the market, and there will still be room for a commercial center across the road. Member Rice commented on the discussion of Mr. Wittman that this commercial center would draw from areas to the south. He questioned whether people would actually come this far north to a commercial center. Mr. Wittman emphatically affirmed that they would. Mr. Clifford Burford, Planning Consultant, San Diego, discussed his report. He declared that presently the applicant is developing 1100 homes in the area, and many cities, including San Diego, are now recommending 10 acres for neighborhood shopping center. The applicant's 6 acres and the 5 acres across the road will not fit the need for commercial in the area. Mr. Burford added that he felt the General Plan was extremely conservative for this area. Member Adams asked how he figured a market area, from what point. Mr. Burford indicated that was hard to define--in an area where a home will have two automobiles, this can extend to 5 or 10 miles. The consumer is much more mobile today. Member Adams felt another major commercial center should not take place within 10 miles from this point. Mr. Burford disagreed indicating that another commercial area could occur one mile away, and that people from all over will come to visit a good commercial center because of the freeway. Member Rice asked if the people from down around Main Street would be attracted to this center. Mr. ~urford maintained that they would be--a modern, more up-to-date shopping center will draw the most traffic. Mr. Wittman again pointed out the collector streets leading up to this area and noted the ease of getting to this proposed center from Main Street. -ll- Member Hyde asked the applicant if C-N zoning would be acceptable to him. Mr. Burford claimed that after reviewing the ordinance in this respect, what they have in mind would fit in very well with the C-1 zone; whereas, in the C-N zone they would have to apply for many conditional use permits. He added that he was not familiar with the City's proposed C-V zone. Mr. Burford further added that they hope to start development in about 6 months. Mr. Lawrence Herman, 615 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, speaking for Mr. Gilbert Dreyfuss, owner of the property across the road, read a letter to the Commission from Mr. Dreyfuss in which they voicee their objection to the request. He said he also contacted Mr. Irving Sutter, also an owner of the C-N property across the road. He asked that the Commission be informed that he has tried for two years to develop this commercial area but every supermarket he has contacted has felt that the neighborhood was not yet large enough for it. Mr. Sutter maintained there was no need for inore commercial zoning in the area. Originally, they planned a 10-acre parcel, but the Colmlission cut this down to six acres indicating there was no need for more land. He also questioned the compatibility of having two super- markets, one across the street from the other, and felt the area would not be able to support two markets. Mr. Sutter further added that the present C-N property should be developed before any other commercial zoning in the area takes place. Mrs. B. Wrightman, 916 Maria Way, said she is buying lot 17 in the adjacent subdivision to the south which is at a point overlooking this proposed development. She stated she would object to the noise and lights from this proposed development. Mrs. Wrightman declared she did not realize there was going to be two major collectors on either side of this subdivision; for this reason, and the proposed shopping center, she may "pull out" of escrow for this lot. Mr. Wittman explained that the grade difference between the residential and the proposeo commercial site would be 70 feet so the residents would all be looking down on and beyond this site. Mr. Wittman felt there was room enough for two commercial centers here. Mr. Herman commented on the struggle ~is firm has gone through to maintain this present C-N zone. He said they were not speculators--they will be developing this site. He visualized the applicant going into his R-3 zoned area and getting more commercial zoning, expanding the site to, say, 20 acres and bringing in a department store. Member Adams declared the proposal was against the principles of the General Plan and he does not favor it. The principle is that there will be a 5 or 6 acre shopping center to take care of the immediate needs of the neighborhood; perhaps these centers would be one or two miles apart. Here they are talking about something that covers more than the needs of the neighborhood. Mr. Adams felt the downtown area should have the major facilities for shopping. Member Rice declared that if there was a need for more commercial zoning in the area, then the present site zoned C-N should be expanded; however, the Commission has yet to see a significant need shown even for that commercial area. Mr. Rice further questioned the statement that traffic to this area would be generated from as far south as Main Street; he declared that shopping centers should be in the immediate vicinity. He added that he was in favor of the R-3 zoning. -12- Member York maintained that this is a more desirable site for a shopping center than most presently in Chula Vista because of the freeway interchange. He felt that within the next ten years this freeway interchange could support a 60 acre shopping center here; it will serve 12 acres if this is the only thing available. Mr. York added that getting shoppers from Main Street is a valid one because of the easy access this site will have. Member Aoams agreed to this, adding for this reason, the people will go to tilis center, thus draining off business from downtown Chula Vista. Member York claimed that people do not want to drive any great distance to shopping centers today; he cited examples to illustrate this theory. Chairman Stewart declared that when the meeting started, De felt there was no justification for another commercial area as requested, but since the presentations, he has changed his mind. When the freeway is built, there will be a need, and to wait until the freeway is built would not be fair to the developer since ~e would not be able to make any long-range plans. Mr. Stewart added he tends to favor this rezoning. Member Rice questioned how they could grant C-1 across the street from C-N--the two would not be compatible. If the Commission underestimated the commercial requirements for this area, then they should reconsider the C-N zone property. Director Warren indicated there has been a great deal of conjecture tonight but nothing based on facts and figures. Merely because the City has a regional shopping area downtown is no reason to say another one cannot be supported out here. Merely because this is a freeway interchange does not dictate commercial need. Mr. Warren felt this subject should be pursued in greater detail at a Commission workshop meeting. Member Rice agreed and suggested it be postponed until a study is made of the area; he felt the Commission should have some guidelines on this. The Commission concurred they were in favor of the R-3 request. They discussed the principles of the General Plan for this area. Mr. Warren declared that if development in this area continues at the same trend as presently established, it will be at a much higher density than the General Plan anticipated. Mr. Wittman stated he was in complete concurrence with the suggestion for post- ponement as he can substantiate his position on the matter. MSUC (York-Gregson) Public hearing be continued to the meeting of March 15, 1968 and the staff be directed to make a study of the area to determine the feasibility of more commercially zoned land. This report and general comments concerning shopping center location criteria to be presented to the Commission at their workshop meeting of March 11, 1968. -13- PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 332 "E" Street - Request for reduction in rear yard setback from 15' to O' - Morrell The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in rear yard setback from 15' to O' for property at 332 "E" Street. ~irector of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land use and zoning. He explained that the lot was located within the parking district and abuts the side yard of a C-2 zoned lot to the south. This lot has a 0' setback along the common property line. The applicant plans to construct a new 2500 square foot auto repair shop on the south property line. Mr. Warren explained that in a C-2 zoned area, there is a requirement of a 15' rear yard setback ann a O' side yard setback. In the new zoning ordinance, this lb' rear yard setback has been eliminated where tile lot abuts a O' side yard of an adjoining lot, such as the case now before the Commission. For this reason, the staff would recommend approval. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. M. Morrell, the applicant, stated he was present, and was happy with the presentation made by the Planning Director. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission voiced itheir favoring of this request. MSUC (York-Gregson) Approval of variance request. Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. The applicant would be required to observe a 15' setback along the same property line adjoining this parcel to the south which enjoys a O' side yard. b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to Other property in the same zone or neighborhood. The requirement for a 15' rear yard would serve no purpose unless adjacent to a residential zone or other uses requiring a setback. The property abuts a 15' wide alley to the west and, therefore, is separated from adjoining uses on three sides. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the properties in this area since they are not required to maintain a setback adjacent to this parcel. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan wilt not De affected. -14- PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 619 E. Manor Drive (frontin~ on 600 Broadway) - Request to u~e R-1 zoned property for commercial use The application was read in whici/ a request was made for permission to use a portion of the R-l zoned property on East Manor Drive (contiguous with 600 Broadway) for offstreet parking purposes in conjunction with the operation of a restaurant and prepared food pick-up business which will be constructed on the C-2 zoned property facing Broadway. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land use and zoning. He stated the property is already under use for parking. The chain link fence presently on the property would be replaced with a wall. The staff recommends approval subject to the condition that a 6' high solid wall be constructed and that the lot shall be used for vehicular parking only. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Curren stated he was present. There being no comment, either for or against, the Hearing was declared closed. Member Rice asked about rezoning the property. Chairman Stewart explained the procedure would take 90 days. Director Warren commented t~at the staff was informed today that the proposed barbequed beef house will not be leasing this property, but that this should have no bearing on the variance request. City Attorney Lindberg concurred with Member Rice's statement--he felt the Co~nission should initiate proceedings for rezoning this area. Hr. Curren stated he was in full agreement with the conditions listed by the Planning Director. MSUC (Adams-Hyde) Variance request be approved subject to the following conOitions: (1) The R-l zoned property shall be fenced with a ~' high solid wall or fence separating subject area from the existing use. Any access through this fence shall be subject to Planning Staff approval. (2) The lot shall not be used for any use except vehicular parking. Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. The shallow depth of commercial zoning along the west side of Broadway does not allow sufficient room to provide offstreet parking. -15- b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to o~her property in the same zone or neighborhood. This area has been used for commercial parking without any problems for a number of years. The parcel is bounded on two sides by commercial zoning and the proposed boundary makes a more logical land use pattern. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. The property has been used for over ten years as offstreet parking for the commercial garage on the corner with no effect on the surrounding area. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The proposed use will be in agreement with the General Plan. PUBLIC HkARING - Variance - 669 E. Manor Drive (fronting on 670 Broadwas) - Request to use R-1 zoned properts for commercial use - George The application was read in which a request was made for permission to allow an 8' extension into an R-1 zoned area for the construction of a commercial structure. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land use and zoning. He also showed a large plot plan of the lot noting the area of the building and the proposed parking. The lot is not of adequate depth to properly accommodate a building, and thus the staff is sympathetic with the request. The building proposed by the applicant was designed to allow for future access to the area west of the structure. Mr. Warren compared this request with that just approved by t~e Commission (Curren) and noted that this is for permanent construction, whereas the other request was for an open area. He added that he suggested in the staff report that a study be made of this area and that they come up with a better solution to this problem. Director Warren then discussed three conditions that the staff offers for recommendation, if the Co~ission approves the request. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Sci~wing, 662 E. Manor Drive, questioned the type of business going in and declared that if the applicant gets this 8' intrusion approved, it would start a precedent in the area. ~r. 8ill George, the applicant, 671 Broadway, asked for approval of his request. The way it stands now, he said, he can only build a 900 square foot delicatessen store with a liquor license. Mr. George stated he will be building a solid wall back of the property. Mr. Elmer Farikoff, 659 E. Manor Drive, felt the matter should be tabled until such time as the entire area could be studied. There being no further comment, either for or against, the Rearing was declared closed. -16- Member Rice commented that this is an example of perpetuating the evils of strip commercial zoning--the staff should make a study that would provide a satisfactory solution to everyone concerned. City Attorney Lindberg stated that the Conmlission can continue this for a reasonable period of time. ~r. George declared he applied for a liquor license in October, it was issued in December, and he has until June 1 to start this business. He claimed he will lose $6,000 if he doesn't get this variance. Member York asked if he could get an extension on this license. Mr. George answered he didn't know, but would try. MSUC (Guyer-Hyde) Matter be continued to the meeting of March 18 and the staff directed to make a study of this area (between "I" and "J" Streets) towarO recommending a better zoning and land use pattern in the area. PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 616 "G" Street - Request for reduction of front yard setback from 25' to 15' - Martin Green The application was read in which a request was made for reduction of front yard setback from 25' to 15' for the purpose of constructing an apartment complex. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area, the adjacent land use and zoning. He noted this parcel was included in an area study by the staff concerning setbacks. The staff would recommend that the variance be approved in accordance with findings submitted. Mr. Warren indicated that a 15' setback on all streets such as this one is contemplated in the new zoning ordinance. He then dis- cussed the four conditions proposed by the staff for approval. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Warren noted one letter from Mr. Gayle G. Fick, 352 broadway, favoring the request. Mr. Martin Green, the applicant, stated he was in agreement with all of the conditions. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission concurred that they favored the request. MSUC (Rice-Adams) Approval of request subject to the following conditions: (l) A landscape and irrigation plan for the front setback and parkway area shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of any building permits. The location and species of all existing trees within the parkway area shall be indicateO (additional street trees may be required). (2) Utility service from the street shall be underground. (3) Any signs placed within the front setback area will require Planning Department approval. -17- (4) The actual plot plan submitted does not meet ordinance requirements and approval of the setback reduction is contingent upon the re-submission of plans and actual Planning Department approval of same. Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent witi~ the general purpose and intent of the regulations. A 15' setback is being contemplated in the City's proposed zoning ordinance for multiple family use. A required 25' setback would represent an unnecessary hardship for this lot, since a 13' parkway will be maintained as well. b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. There is an existing 5' setback on the north side of "G" and 60' to the east on the south side. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental so the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. The reduced setback will not be detrimental to the area since smaller setbacks exist in the area and the proposed setback will be the same as that contemplated for much of the City in multiple family zones. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan will not be affected. PUBLIC HEARING - Request for clarification of zone boundary - R-3 zoning adjacent to Bonita Cove - F. Ferreira Director of Planning Warren explained that in December 1964, a zoning map was adopted by the City Council for this Bonita Cove area which included a 20' strip of land adjacent to the easterly portion of this subdivision. The zoning map did not have any specific dimensions on it and there is some question now as to the zoning pattern. The ordinance states that where a boundary is not clearly determined, the Comnission shall determine the boundaries. The staff recommends that the R-1 should stop at the easterly terminus of the Bonita Cove subdivision, with R-3-D starting at that point and going east. The Commission briefly discussed this and agreed that this was their feeling also. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Establishing RESOLUTION NO. 499 A Zone Boundary for the Bonita Cove Subdivision -18- Findings are: The R-3-D zoning should begin at the rear lot line of the easterly tier of lots in the Bonita Cove Subdivision. Discussion - Proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance - Temporary signs in "D" zone Director of Planning Warren explained that when someone needs a larger sign, it is necessary for them to file for a variance. The restrictions of the "D" zone are meant for permanent development, and the staff feels that there is no logic involved in not permitting construction of temporary signs larger than 50 square feet. The staff would like to have a provision here whereby signs larger than 50 square feet would be permitted. MSUC (Rice-Hyde) Staff be directed to draft an amendment permitting certain temporary signs in the "D" zone, to be set for hearing at a later date. To be set for public hearing - Rezoning from R-1 to R-3 - South side of "I" Street~ east of Garrett Avenue Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan showing the split zoning in the area. The staff would request that the Commission initiate a public hearing to consider rezoning of this area. The Commission discussed this matter briefly and agreed that it should be set for hearing for the next meeting. MSUC (York-Hyde) Rezoning from R-1 to R-3 for the south side of "I" Street, east of Garrett Avenue be set for hearing for the meeting of March 18, 1968. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Rice-Gregson) Meeting be adjourned. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. The Commission will hold a workshop meeting beginning at 6 p.m. Monday, March ll, 1968, at the Sunnyside Steak Ranch, Bonita. R~spectful ly submitted, ~ Jennie M. Fulasz ~ - Secretary